Re: [OT] The Cathlics and Gay Marriage in Canada

Once Upon a Midnight Dreary, While Cheryl Perkins Pondered, Weak and
Weary, Over Many a Quaint and Curious Forgotten Post, then wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jr@Ease <no.way.in.hell.should.you.send.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> The difference, if it's not obvious, is that there is PROOF that the
>> agonizing fates that are threatened will actually occur.
>
>There is often no proof, or 'proof' that is so mangled or so incomplete or
>so completely ficticious as to be unworthy of the name. Have you followed
>the various fashions in 'advice' as to how to raise you child so he won't
>develop schizophrenia, addiction, autism, or a variety of other nasty
>problems?

Well, proof, or some reasonable means of ascertaining the truth. Sure,
every crank wives tale and home remedy can't be proved, but it can be
disproved. You can't say that about eternal damnation.
>
>The secular world is full of 'dangers' that are non-existent, rare,
>and/or not caused or cured by whatever the currently popular theory held
>by the experts says. And we all live with this, more or less. But you find
>the threat of hellfire - which you yourself consider even more
>non-existent than, I would guess, the threat of being shot dead if you go
>to the mall - so bizarre and threatening that people who believe it
>shouldn't be allowed to spread their beliefs.

No. That's not what I say. To the contrary, "I* find it nonsensical
and laughable, not worthy of serious consideration, hence it shouldn't
be spread. *Others* find it so threatening that they are unable to
ignore it when making decisions that affect their lives, and hence
make , in hindsight, bad life or death decisions.

>
>> No. I don't know exactly what you are saying here. If it's a
>> suggestion, not a command under threat of eternal damnation, I have no
>> need to tell the Church how to run its business. There's no
>> contradiction.
>
>And I don't follow you here.

Well, we'll have to let it be, then.:)
>
>>>I think African men and women, poor or rich, can make up their own minds
>>>about their religious beliefs.
>
>> Not only can they not make up their own minds, but neither can
>> American Catholics, or Brazilian Catholics, or Filipino Catholics,
>> because they have a gun to their head. They are psychologically
>> incapable of making reasoned decisions until they are given all the
>> facts. Three of those are the existence of sin, heaven and hell. You
>> can add a fourth: souls.
>
>This I absolutely, totally disagree with. You are essentially saying that
>until or unless someone accepts your views on sin, heaven, hell and souls,
>they are incapable of making up their own minds!

No. They don't have to agree with me. I could be wrong. But they
should be given level information, in the form of just that,
information. Not dictation under threat of eternal damnation, after
being raised since birth to be predisposed to believing what the
Church wants them to believe. That's not the type of information you
use to make a reasoned decision.

>Isn't it remotely
>possible that they can make up their minds just fine, even though they
>come to different conclusions than you did?

Remotely, under the scenario, and the reality, of the way the
decisions are made. Very remote.


>> That's the essence of the difference between a believer in god, and a
>> non-beleiver. Never the twain shall meet, eh?
>
>It's difficult to do on more than a fairly superficial level with such
>different worldviews. Fortunately, that still leaves some point of
>contact!

I agree with that.

>> I'm not so sure about the former, but the latter I agree with. Nothing
>> is perfect. As to the former, I think that some humans may really and
>> validly search for a sense of the spiritual (do not read
>> supernatural), that may be met by beliefs that cannot be proven. But a
>> study of this cannot and should not be done under threats of horrid
>> fates if you don't follow one particular set of beliefs, a la Catholic
>> "sin"
>
>There has certainly been some rather counterproductive efforts in
>religious education over the centuries. I was fortunate - I found mine
>devoid of threats of horrid fates, but so boring I did a deal with my
>mother - I'd go to the regular adult service without complaints as long as
>I could skip Sunday School.

You weren't raised Catholic, were you? Or am I getting you mixed up
with someone else here. I know Jane was not, but she had a lot of
contact with Catholics, and of course has intensely studied it. But
having been raised Catholic, and "indoctrinated" like all other
Catholics, more or less to the same degree I suspect, I can tell you
that if I still believed the stuff those nuns taught me about sin,
heaven and hell, I would not use birth control if my life depended on
it. I also suspect that Catholics who go against church teaching in
this regard would also tell you that they don't believe in those
abstract concepts as strictly as we were taught. America is more
highly educated, and I think the higher the educational level, the
less pull religion has on people. Which still makes the Catholic
Church a force to be reckoned with in third world countries, and is
one of the reasons why HIV is more prevalent in those countries. Yes,
poverty, lack of medicine etc, also, but resistance to something that
goes against deeply held beliefs also plays a part, and the RCC should
take responsibility for some of that.

>> If religion acts responsibly, let it participate. The examples we've
>> been discussing, in my view, preclude discussion by religious
>> organizations, at least as to those aspects, until its thinking and
>> guidance changes drastically.
>
>Ah, but you're still saying that you - maybe not you personally, but you
>secularists - get to decide when and under what conditions religious
>believers may participate in society. And that is completely contrary to
>freedom of religion and equality of all citizens.

No. All I'm saying is that imposed religious beliefs are not freely
absorbed. The Church dictates, it doesn't advise or suggest, and it
does so to a populace that it has predisposed to accept the dictates.
To me, that is actually contrary to freedom of religion and equality.

John P
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Voting Prejudices
    ... I, for one, would NEVER take into account a candidate's religion, ... religious practices or religious beliefs in deciding whether or not to ... Only nine percent say they would not vote for ... Catholic was as high as 22 percent, was 1959 for Catholics and 1961 ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Pseudo-Christians (nbc)
    ... religion a majority over the other. ... lives revolve around their neighborhood parish, ... I have my own beliefs, ... Catholics. ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • OT - When America feared and reviled Catholics
    ... many Americans - from ordinary citizens to those in high office - were frightened by the perceived threat from the Roman Catholic Church. ... The mind-set is all too familiar: A radical religious group, lurking inside the country, owing loyalty to a foreign power, threatens America. ... Because of the number of Americans sharing these fears, calls for restrictions on the religion are voiced openly and unapologetically, even proudly. ... But in fact, it describes the year 1920, when the reviled group was Roman Catholics, not Muslims. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: Voting Prejudices
    ... I, for one, would NEVER take into account a candidate's religion, ... religious practices or religious beliefs in deciding whether or not to ... Only nine percent say they would not vote for ... Catholic was as high as 22 percent, was 1959 for Catholics and 1961 ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Jihad group targets Matt and Trey of South Park
    ... if you make fun of them and ridicule them ... of beliefs is mocked is that followers will protest, ... A death threat and making fun of ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)